Kerala High Court
Yousaph C vs State Of Kerala on 1 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2023/10TH PHALGUNA, 1944
O.T.REV.NO.81 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 3.2.2021 IN TA (VAT).NOS.165/2018, 166/2018,
168/2018, 169/2018 & 170/2018 OF THE KVAT/AGRL.I.T. & STAT,
ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:
YOUSAPH.C
AGED 56 YEARS
NANMINDA WOOD INDUSTRIES, NANMINDA,
KOZHIKODE-673 613.
BY ADV.SMT.M.K.HAJARA
BY ADV.SRI.C.RAMACHANDRAN
RESPONDENT/REVENUE/RESPONDENTS:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
BY SMT.M.M.JASMINE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.02.2023 ALONG WITH O.T.REV.NO.87/2021 AND
O.T.REV.NO.88/2021, THE COURT ON 01.03.2023 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.T. Rev..Nos.81, 87 & 88/2021 :: 2 ::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2023/10TH PHALGUNA, 1944
O.T.REV NO.87 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 3.2.2021 IN TA (VAT).NOS.165/2018, 166/2018,
168/2018, 169/2018 & 170/2018 OF THE KVAT/AGRL.I.T. & STAT,
ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:
YOUSAPH.C
NANMINDA WOOD INDUSTRIES, NANMINDA,
KOZHIKODE - 673 613
BY ADV.SMT.M.K.HAJARA
BY ADV.SRI.C.RAMACHANDRAN
RESPONDENT/REVENUE/RESPONDENTS:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
BY SMT.M.M.JASMINE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.02.2023 ALONG WITH O.T.REV.NO.81/2021 AND
O.T.REV.NO.88/2021, THE COURT ON 01.03.2023 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.T. Rev..Nos.81, 87 & 88/2021 :: 3 ::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2023/10TH PHALGUNA, 1944
O.T.REV.NO.88 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 3.2.2021 IN TA (VAT).NOS.165/2018, 166/2018,
168/2018, 169/2018 & 170/2018 OF THE KVAT/AGRL.I.T. & STAT,
ADDITIONAL BENCH, KOZHIKODE
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:
YOUSAPH.C
AGED 56 YEARS
NANMINDA WOOD INDUSTRIES, NANMINDA,
KOZHIKODE-673 613
BY ADV.SMT.M.K.HAJARA
BY ADV.SRI.C.RAMACHANDRAN
RESPONDENT/REVENUE/RESPONDENTS:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
TAXES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001
BY SMT.M.M.JASMINE, GOVT. PLEADER
THIS OTHER TAX REVISION (VAT) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.02.2023 ALONG WITH O.T.REV.NO.81/2021 AND
O.T.REV.NO.87/2021, THE COURT ON 01.03.2023 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
O.T. Rev..Nos.81, 87 & 88/2021 :: 4 ::
ORDER
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
As the issue involved in these O.T. Revisions is the legality of
the penalty orders and assessment orders issued against the
common assessee, who is the petitioner in these revision petitions,
they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this
common judgment.
2. The petitioner assessee is running a saw mill where he is
engaged inter alia in the job work of sawing timber brought by
third parties. There are also wood industry machines installed in the
premises of the petitioner to cater to proximate customers and their
requirements of wooden frames of doors, windows and for planing jobs
etc. The issue involved in these revision petitions pertains to the
legality of the assessment orders and penalty orders passed under the
Kerala Value Added Tax Act [KVAT Act] for the assessment years 2008-
09, 2009-10 and 2010-11.
O.T. Rev..Nos.81, 87 & 88/2021 :: 5 ::
3. Pursuant to an inspection conducted at the saw mill of the
petitioner on 4.9.2010, a shop inspection report was drawn up, and
relying on the material that was seized from the petitioner's premises
on the said day, the Intelligence Officer, Kozhikode passed an order
dated 25.1.2011 imposing penalties of Rs.26,52,202/- for the
assessment year 2009-10 and Rs.36,02,373/- for the assessment year
2010-11. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner approached the
First Appellate Authority, who, vide an order dated 16.9.2011, set
aside the penalty orders passed by the Intelligence Officer and
directed him to go into the matter afresh after furnishing the
petitioner with the details of the seized documents etc. In the de novo
proceedings that followed, the Intelligence Officer passed a fresh
order dated 28.6.2012 imposing penalties of Rs.2,21,102/- for the
assessment year 2008-09, Rs.68,40,658/- for the assessment year
2009-10 and Rs.94,81,490/- for the assessment year 2010-11. The
petitioner once again carried the matters in appeals before the First
Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the said appeals, and as a
condition for the grant of stay, the petitioner also deposited an amount
of Rs.20,00,000/- with the Department. Thereafter the appeals were
disposed by the First Appellate Authority by an order dated 29.5.2013,
O.T. Rev..Nos.81, 87 & 88/2021 :: 6 ::
partly allowing the appeals and remitting the matter back to the
Intelligence Officer to reconsider the application of the petitioner on
the seized material and to give reasons for the enhancement of
penalties against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order of the
First Appellate Authority, the petitioner carried the matters in further
appeals before the Appellate Tribunal. By an order dated 30.8.2014,
the Appellate Tribunal modified the order of the First Appellate
Authority. The said order of the Appellate Tribunal was acted upon by
the Intelligence Officer, who passed a modified order imposing
penalties of Rs.2,020/- for the assessment year 2008-09, Rs.45,86,141/-
for the assessment year 2009-10 and Rs.35,30,017/- for the
assessment year 2010-11.
4. Against the modified order of the Intelligence Officer, the
petitioner preferred a further appeal to the Deputy Commissioner
(Appeals), who, vide order dated 20.12.2017 allowed the appeals
preferred by the petitioner by setting aside the penalty orders passed
against the petitioner. In the said order, the First Appellate Authority
found that for the assessment year 2008-09, the Intelligence Officer
had imposed penalty on the petitioner based on the data contained in
the slips that were recovered from the premises of the petitioner and,
O.T. Rev..Nos.81, 87 & 88/2021 :: 7 ::
in particular, from one Sri.E.K. Balachandran, who was present in the
petitioner's premises at the time of inspection on 4.9.2010. The First
Appellate Authority found that the data contained in the said slips
related to the business of other dealers such as M/s.Sarada Timbers
and Sri.K.I. Sreenivasan, that had not been accounted by them in their
books of account. The data in the slips was taken by the Intelligence
Officer as pertaining to the petitioner assessee and was added to the
turnover of the petitioner for the purposes of arriving at a finding of
suppressed turnover and consequent imposition of penalty. The
Appellate Authority found that the Intelligence Officer had acted
merely on presumptions and surmises, and hence, the penalty imposed
for the said year could not be sustained. For the assessment year
2009-10 and 2010-11, the Appellate Authority found that, as in the
case of the assessment year 2008-09, the additions to the turnover of
the petitioner were made on the basis of recovered slips that
contained data relating to the businesses of Sri.K.I. Sreenivasan and
Sri.K.V. Abdul Rasheed. It was noticed that Sri.Balachandran, who
was cited as the witness in the shop inspection report, had deposed
that he was the accountant of Sri.K.V. Abdul Rasheed, and both of
them had deposed that the details in the slips recovered from the
petitioner's mill, at the time of inspection, pertained to the business of
O.T. Rev..Nos.81, 87 & 88/2021 :: 8 ::
Sri.K.V. Abdul Rasheed. A similar statement had also been given by
Sri.K.I. Sreenivasan, who, like Sri.K.V. Abdul Rasheed, had come
forward and deposed that some of the entries in the seized slips
pertained to his business. The Appellate Authority found that in the
light of the said evidence that was tendered by Sri.Balachandran,
Sri.K.V. Abdul Rasheed and Sri.K.I. Sreenivasan against their own
interests, the version of the petitioner that the data in the recovered
slips did not pertain to his business had to be accepted. It was thus
that the First Appellate Authority found that the penalty orders passed
against the petitioner could not be legally sustained and proceeded to
set aside the same.
5. Pursuant to the order of the First Appellate Authority, the
petitioner approached the Department for refund of the amount paid
as a condition for the grant of stay while the matter was pending
before the First Appellate Authority on an earlier occasion.
Consequent to a direction of this Court in W.P.(C).No.24012 of 2018, an
amount of Rs.20,00,000/- that was paid by the petitioner was refunded
to him vide an order dated 26.2.2019 of the Intelligence Officer.
6. The Department, being aggrieved by the order passed by the
O.T. Rev..Nos.81, 87 & 88/2021 :: 9 ::
First Appellate Authority, carried the matter in appeal before the
Tribunal. By the said time, the First Appellate Authority had also set
aside the assessment orders passed against the petitioner for the
assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 since they had all
been passed following the penalty orders, and the said penalty orders
had been set aside by the First Appellate Authority. When the Tribunal
came to consider the appeals against the penalty orders at the
instance of the Department, the appeals against the assessment orders
were also pending before it at the instance of the Department. It was
therefore that by the common order dated 3.2.2021 that is impugned
in these revision petitions the Tribunal considered the appeals
preferred by the Department, both against the setting aside of the
penalty orders for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11
as also against the setting aside of the assessment orders for the said
years. The Tribunal, in its order, restored the penalty orders passed
by the Intelligence Officer on the following reasoning:
"9. The lone legal issue involved in the impugned proceedings
of imposition of penalty on the Respondent for years 2009-
10 & 2010-11 is Whether the slips / diary recovered from
the business place of the Respondent herein at the time of
inspection were related to the business transactions
effected the Respondent only? The case of the Enquiry
Officer was that the slips / diary was recovered from
business place of the Respondent herein at the time of
O.T. Rev..Nos.81, 87 & 88/2021 :: 10 ::
inspection and so the transactions entered in such slips /
diary were related to the Respondent only. But the case was
challenged by the Respondent on the contentions that slips /
diary was recovered not from their business place, but from
the person named Sri. E. K. Balachandran (who was present
at the site of inspection and also signed the SIR, in witness
of the same), the accountant of Sri. K.V. Abdul Rasheed, who
had entrusted the timber to the Respondent for sawing and
job work. But the contentions of the Respondent were
overruled in adjudication, holding that deposition of the
witness (Sri. E. K. Balachandran) could not be accepted
because he was present at the site of inspection throughout
and signed the SIR after completing the inspection, being
an accountant who was conversant with the procedures of
shop inspection, he would have been well aware that the
same was conducted in the business place of the
Respondent only and also that verification of the diary and
the slips revealed that the entries made thereon were not
related to the transaction effected by Sri. K.V. Abdul
Rasheed, but by the Respondent only. This prime and
cardinal issue involved in the impugned proceedings of
penalty were not addressed properly nor discussed
judiciously in 1st appeal, instead the case was decided in
favour of the Respondent herein, holding that a
dispassionate evaluation of the entire evidence, especially
the affidavit and deposition of the witness to the inspection
and that of the related Works contractor and also material
evidence revealed from the recovered slips / diary went to
show that the said slips / diary was not related to the
Respondent herein (but to the above said Works contractor),
so the transactions involved in the same could not be
attributed to them and hence the imposition of penalty on
them for the year 2009-10 & 2010-11 is liable to be deleted.
10. It is pertinent to note that the Respondent herein (if their
claim that they were not dealers in Timber / wooden
furniture, but engaged in sawing / job work of Timber /
Wooden furniture were true to facts) were legally bound to
keep all the records related to the receipt / issue of such
Timber / wooden furniture viz. date of receipt, their quantity
/ value, collection of sawing / job works charges, date of
issue of the finished Timber / furniture, their quantity etc.
and also produce the same for verification by the officials of
the Commercial Taxes Department, during the inspection to
O.T. Rev..Nos.81, 87 & 88/2021 :: 11 ::
their place of business (or otherwise) or the officials of
other departments concerned viz. Forest, Police etc. as
when required such officials. Further, the question Why the
witness to the inspection (Sri. E.K. Balachandran) who is
later claimed to be the accountant of another dealer Sri.
K.V. Abdul Rasheed) had surrendered the slips / diary to the
officials of the inspection team and signed the SIR in
witness to the same remained unanswered. There was no
allegation by the Respondent herein or the said Sri. E.K.
Balachandran, (at any stage of three fold litigation) that the
officials had collected the slips / diary, forcefully or by
intimidation nor that the latter had signed the SIR in
witness to the inspection, by coercion or misrepresentation
of the facts by the officials. In such circumstances, the
contentions on behalf of the State (that it is the basic rule
that any records / documents recovered from the business
place of a dealer, during an inspection to that place, such
records / documents are related to that dealer only, who is
answerable to each and every entry therein, unless the
same is proved to the contrary, since the diary and slips
were recovered either from the business place of the
Respondent herein or from the witness to the inspection and
also since the entries in the diary and that in the Sawing
register and invoices were found in the same handwriting of
the witness to the inspection, it has been proved beyond
doubt that he was the accountant of the Respondent herein
at the time of inspection etc.) are only to be accepted. The
whole facts and circumstances involved in the case make
this bench of the Tribunal finds that the Respondent herein
was engaged in the business of taxable goods (Timber /
wooden furniture etc.), in the guise of the Sawing Mill / Job
work unit, the witness to the inspection (Sri. E.K.
Balachandran) was the accountant of the Respondent
herein, the transactions recorded in the slips / diary
recovered from the business place / the person of the said
witness are related to the Respondent only and hence the
allegations as well as the findings of the Enquiry authority
are liable to be upheld and so the findings in 1 st appeal, to
the contrary are liable to be set aside."
Based on the above finding, the assessment orders were also restored
by holding as follows:
O.T. Rev..Nos.81, 87 & 88/2021 :: 12 ::
"11. The estimation of the turnover escaped and assessment
thereon, in respect of the Respondent herein under section
25(1) of the Act for the years 2009-10 & 2010-11 were
deleted in the respective 1st appeals, for the lone reason that
the penalty proceedings (on which the impugned assessment
proceedings were rooted) were not in existence. Since the
impugned proceedings of penalty under section 67(1) of the
Act, in respect of the Respondent herein for the years 2009-
10 & 2010-11 are now found to be upheld, the consequential
proceedings of assessment in respect of them, for the years
2009-10 & 2010-11 are also to be upheld and the findings in
the respective 1st appeals are liable to be set aside."
It is the legality of the impugned order of the Tribunal that we are
called upon to examine in these Revisions.
7. We have heard Smt.M.K.Hajara, the learned counsel for the
revision petitioner in all these O.T. Revisions and Smt.Jasmine, the
learned Government Pleader for the respondent in all these O.T.
Revisions.
8. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we find that
these are cases where the assessment for the years 2009-10 and 2010-
11 were mechanically completed based solely on the findings
contained in the penalty orders passed by the Intelligence Officer for
the years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11. The penalty orders were
O.T. Rev..Nos.81, 87 & 88/2021 :: 13 ::
passed by placing reliance on the data contained in certain slips
recovered from the business premises of the petitioner during a shop
inspection that was carried out on 4.9.2010. It is not in dispute that
those slips were recovered from one Balachandran, who was present
in the premises of the petitioner on the date of inspection. The said
Balachandran, however, had deposed before the authorities that he
was the employee of Sri.K.V. Abdul Rasheed and that he was at the
petitioner's mill on that day only to supervise the sawing of material
brought from Sri.K.V. Abdul Rasheed's premises. Sri.K.V. Abdul
Rasheed and Sri.K.I. Sreenivasan, who were admittedly dealers in
timber, had also admitted before the authorities that the details in the
slips recovered from Sri.Balachandran pertained to their business and
not that of the petitioner. Despite this admission by the dealers
concerned, the Intelligence Officer, as also the Tribunal, felt that
insofar as Sri.Balachandran had not objected to the recovery of the
slips from him at the time of inspection or stated that he was the
employee of Sri.K.V. Abdul Rasheed, his version could not be accepted.
We are quite surprised by the said reasoning of the Tribunal. As
rightly found by the First Appellate Authority, the fact that Sri.K.I.
Sreenivasan and Sri.K.V. Abdul Rasheed were deposing against their
own interests by admitting that the data in the slips pertained to their
O.T. Rev..Nos.81, 87 & 88/2021 :: 14 ::
business, ought to have weighed with the Department to initiate an
enquiry against the said persons to ascertain whether they had
suppressed any turnover for the purposes of taxation. They could have
done this simultaneously with a protective assessment against the
petitioner assessee. The fact that they did not do so ought to have
operated against them in an adjudication of the petitioner's case. On
the contrary, the Intelligence Officer as also the Tribunal appears to
have discarded this valuable evidence and mechanically presumed that
the data contained in the slips recovered from the premises of the
petitioner pertained to the business of the petitioner. Since we do not
find any justification in the Intelligence Officer as also the Tribunal
having discarded the evidence tendered by Sri.Balachandran, Sri.K.I.
Sreenivasan and Sri.K.V. Abdul Rasheed, we cannot uphold the
reasoning of the Tribunal, in the orders impugned before us, as correct
or rational. On the contrary, it is the reasoning of the First Appellate
Authority that we find acceptable. Accordingly, we set aside the
impugned order of the Tribunal, to the extent it confirms the penalty
on the petitioner assessee for the assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10
and 2010-11. Further, as the assessment orders for the assessment
years 2009-10 and 2010-11 were based on the penalty orders for the
said years, and we have set aside the said penalty orders in this
O.T. Rev..Nos.81, 87 & 88/2021 :: 15 ::
judgment, the impugned order of the Tribunal, to the extent it restores
the assessment orders for the said years, is also set aside.
Resultantly, these O.T. Revisions are allowed, by setting aside
the impugned orders of the Appellate Tribunal and by answering the
questions of law raised in favour of the assessee and against the
Revenue.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
prp/
O.T. Rev..Nos.81, 87 & 88/2021 :: 16 ::
APPENDIX OF O.T.REV.NO.81/2021
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN TA (VAT)
NOS 1315/2013 1316/2013 & 1317/2013 DATED
30.8.2014
Annexure B JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 2291 OF 2016 OF HON'BLE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA DATED 1.4.2016
Annexure C A TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER NO TCR 22/2013-
14 DATED 4.7.2016 PASSED BY THE INTELLIGENCE
OFFICER, SQUAD NO 1 KOZHIKODE
Annexure D A TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST APPELLATE ORDER IN KVAT
APPEAL NO.791/2017 DATED 20.12.2017 OF THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) 1ST KOZHIKODE
Annexure E JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.24012 OF 2018 OF HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 19.12.2018
Annexure F REFUND ORDER NO TCR 22A/2013-14 DATED
7.2.2019(RECTIFIED ORDER NO TCR 22A/2013-14
DATED 26.2.2019) OF THE INT. OFFICER SQUAD NO 1
Annexure G A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN TA
(VAT) NOS.165/2018, 166/2018, 168/2018, 169/2018
& 170/2018 DATED 3.2.2021
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
O.T. Rev..Nos.81, 87 & 88/2021 :: 17 ::
APPENDIX OF O.T.REV.NO.87/2021
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN TA (VAT)
NOS.1315/2013013, 1316/21316/2013 AND 1317/2013
DATED 3008.2014.
Annexure B JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.2291 OF 2016 OF HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA DT. 01.04.2016.
Annexure C A TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER NO. TCR
22A/2013-14 DATED 04.07.2016 PASSED BY THE
INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO.1, KOZHIKODE.
Annexure D A TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST APPELLATE ORDER IN KVAT
APPEAL NO.791/2017 DATED 20.12.2017 OF THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) 1, KOZHIKODE.
Annexure E A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO. J1-
1237/16/2009-10 DATED 29.04.2017 PASSED BY THE
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 5TH CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE.
Annexure F A TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST APPELLATE ORDER IN KVAT
APPEAL (VATA) NO.1578/2017 DATED 11.01.2018 OF
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), KOZHIKODE.
Annexure G JUDGMENT IN W.P.C NO.24012 OF 2018 OF HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA DT. 19.12.2018.
Annexure H REFUND ORDER NO. TCR.22A/2013-14 DATED
07.02.2019 (RECTIFIED ORDER NO. TCR.22A/2013-14
DATED 26.02.2019).
Annexure I A TRUE COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN TA (VAT)
NOS.165/2018, 166/2018, 169/2018 AND 170/2018
O.T. Rev..Nos.81, 87 & 88/2021 :: 18 ::
DATED 03.02.2021.
Annexure J A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.J1-
1237/16/2009-10 DATED: 25.09.2021 PASSED BY
STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE
DEPARTMENT, 5TH CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE.
Annexure K A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REVENUE
RECOVERY IN FORM NO.1 & 10 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY
TAHSILDAR, THAMARASSERY TALUK, THAMARASSERY
DATED 4.5.2022 & 6.5.2022 RESPECTIVELY.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
O.T. Rev..Nos.81, 87 & 88/2021 :: 19 ::
APPENDIX OF O.T.REV.NO.88/2021
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN TA (VAT)
NOS. 1315/2013013, 1316/21316/2013 AND 1317/2013
DATED 30.08.2014.
Annexure B JUDGMENT IN W.P.C NO. 2291 OF 2016 OF HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA DT. 01.04.2016.
Annexure C A TRUE COPY OF THE PENALTY ORDER NO. TCR
22A/2013-14 DATED 04.07.2016 PASSED BY THE
INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, SQUAD NO. 1, KOZHIKODE.
Annexure D A TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST APPELLATE ORDER IN KVAT
APPEAL NO. 791/2017 DATED 20.12.2017 OF THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) 1, KOZHIKODE.
Annexure E A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO. J1-
1237/16/2010 -11 DATED 01.07.2017 PASSED BY THE
COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, 5TH CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE.
Annexure F A TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST APPELLATE ORDER IN KVAT
APPEAL (VATA) NO. 1677/2017 DATED 11.01.2018 OF
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), KOZHIKODE.
Annexure G JUDGMENT IN W.P. C NO. 24012 OF 2018 OF HON'BLE
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, DT. 19.12.2018.
Annexure H REFUND ORDER NO. TCR 22A/2013-14 DATED
07.02.2019 (RECTIFIED ORDER NO. TCR 22A/2013-14
DATED 26.02.2019).
Annexure I A TRUE COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN TA (VAT)
NOS.165/2018, 168/2018, 169/2018 AND 170/2018
O.T. Rev..Nos.81, 87 & 88/2021 :: 20 ::
DATED 03.02.2021.
Annexure J A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO.J1-
1237/16/2010-11 DATED: 28.09.2021 PASSED BY
STATE TAX OFFICER, STATE GOODS AND SERVICE
DEPARTMENT, 5TH CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE.
Annexure K A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REVENUE
RECOVERY IN FORM NO.1 & 10 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY
TAHSILDAR, THAMARASSERY TALUK, THAMARASSERY
DATED 4.5.2022 & 6.5.2022 RESPECTIVELY.
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
